>> maybe she had a color preference. freezing rain advisory from 1:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. monday. after that in the afternoon rainfall. prepare yourself. roads will be slick. sunshine tuesday and warming up. >> that's, gwen. stay tuned for fox news sunday and join us back here tonight at 6:00 for the latest news and weather. captions by: caption colorado, llc. (800)775-7838. email: comments@captioncolorado.com >> hris: i'm cis wa llac the pentagon l ts the ban on women in combat. ♪ >> chris: as the gender barrier falls, there are still questions. whether women should serve in the infantry and special operations. we'll hear from two retired officers. air force colonel martha mcsally, the first female u.s. combat pilot. and, army lieutenant general jerry boykin. then, with -- the hard part, dealing with gun violence to

getting america back to work, is congress ready to act? we'll get the latest from two top senators: democrat dick durbin and republican bob corker. plus the president uses his inaugural address to push a liberal agenda. we'll ask our sunday panel how mr. obama is likely to do in his second term. and, our power player of the week: a student of the ways presidents exercise power. all, right now, on fox news sunday. ♪ >> chris: and hello, again, from fox news in washington. american women in the military have served on the front lines, for years. and 152 have been killed in iraq an afghanistan. but when defense secretary panetta lifted the ban on women in combat his decision, this week, drew strong praise and sharp criticism. we have brought together two distinguished veterans to discussion the issue. colonel martha mcsally was our

nation's first female combat pilot, logging hours over the skies of iraq an afghanistan and joins us from tucson, lieutenant general jerry boykin was one of the original members of the army's delta force and former head of the u.s. special forces command. colonel, general, welcome to fox news sunday and i have been looking forward to this discussion into thank you very much, chris. >> so have i, thanks for having us on. >> chris: here's how defense secretary panetta explained his decision this week. take a look: >> not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. but, everyone is entitled to a chance. >> chris: general boykin, you dismissed this as another case of the pentagon using the military for a social experiment. i'd like you to tell colonel mcsally directly, knowing her background, look into the camera and tell her why she is unfit to

serve in combat. >> chris you need to frame it correctly. it's not an issue of women in combat. women are in combat already and have been since 9/11. in fact, prior to that. and colonel mcsally is a great example of how women can be used effectively in combat. my issue here is, mixing the genders in infantry units, armored units and special forces units is not a positive, there are many distract tors which puts a burden on small unit combat leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness. >> chris: colonel mcsally, those are the two basic arguments. you are a combat pilot but you are not formally, not in combat on the front lines, you are attached to combat units and the two arguments are, one, physical limitations, particularly to serving in the infantry and also the question of a distraction

during operations, when you are in close quarters, there is no privacy and rugged living conditions and look in your camera and tell general boykin why he's wrong. >> let me just say i realize flying combat aircraft and being on the ground in combat are two very different missions, hover the same flawed arguments were used against allowing women to fly in combat and now allowing them to be on ground combat. like the general said these are flawed arguments the battle line is we need to treat people like individuals. what are the capabilities they bring to the fight. which includes physical strength, plus courage, plus aptitude and leadership and, all the other things we need to have the most effective fighting force and we are a country that sets standards and allows people to compete as individuals and if they bring the better soldier to the fight, women should be able to compete on equal ground. i'm not talking about changing standards, i'm talking about allowing people to be considered for what they bring to the fight. >> chris: let me just --

colonel, if i can, follow up on that. because the marine infantry officer corps offered last september a course, training and two women took part and both dropped out and they said carrying the 70-pound backpacks in infantry on this ground is too tough for women. are you confident that women can meet the same physical standards for ground combat that men do in. >> look, we know the bell curve of men is stronger than the bell curve of women but they overlap. and the current policy, basically says, that no women can meet the standard and therefore, all men can. so that is like saying, general boykin, pee wee herman is okay to be in combat but serena and venus williams will not meet the standard the bottom line is treat people like individuals, physical strength is one element of ground combat but the other qualities i've mentioned like aptitude and courage, and discipline and leadership, are

also what women bring to the fight. the pentagon estimated a few years ago, that 75% of 17 to 24-year-olds are not even qualified to be in the military and we are recruiting from 25% of the population, 15% of them go on to college and we need to recruit from 100% of the population in order to make sure we have the most effective fighting force. >> chris: let me bring general boykin in here. i have to say i like the analogy of the williams sisters versus pee wee herman and i would also point out, colonel mcsally competed in the iron man, military division, men and women in hawaii, triathalon division, and what does it say, clearly some women can meet the standard. >> first of all, some women can and there will be few but some can and that is not the issue i raised initially. what i have raised is the issue of mixing the genders in those combat units where there is no privacy, they are out on extended operations, and there is no opportunity for people to

have any privacy whatsoever. now, as a man, who has been there, and a man who has some experience in these kinds of units i certainly don't want to be in that environment, with a female, because it is degrading and humiliating enough to do your personal hygiene in the -- and other normal functions among your teammates. >> chris: let me ask the colonel to respond to that. >> sure. again, right now, we're in a 360° battlefield and women and men are serving together out there in combat. privacy is a red herring. you can figure out the privacy issues. as long as you have the most capabl capable, qualified force and should be no reason for exclusionary policies, and our closest allies have figured it out for many years, canada have had women fully integrated into the combat forces and have taken serious casualties in afghanistan and women are out there on the front lines, leading men in combat, and doing a fantastic job of it.

the privacy issue, men and women next to each other is the same issue we have seen, a myth, really and it is not a show-stopper to make sure we have the most capable, qualified, fighting force. >> chris: let's -- this edges into the next area i wanted to get into. the issue of sexual assault. the department of veterans affairs did a study and they found that 22.8%, almost a quarter of military women deployed to iraq and afghanistan reported they were sexually assaulted. but, general boykin, the chairman of the joint chiefs, general dempsey, said he thought the ban on women in the military contributed to the assaults. look at what he said: >> you know, one part of the population that is designated as warriors and another part designated as something else, i think that disparity begins to establish a psychology that in some cases led to that

environment. >> chris: is general dempsey wrong? >> well, i don't agree with general dempsey on this issue. and first of all, we need to recognize, that is bad people doing bad things but it happens all over. i'd also like to go back to colonel mcsally's last comment. there is a big difference in flying a combat mission and going back to a hangar where there are facilities and being on a 30 day operation where you you are in very close quarters with your teammates and so this is not a specious argument and i can tell you, having been there is something that has to be considered. but also consider, chris, where does it go? do we draft women? release them from the service for pregnancy? where does it go, ultimately go? they are in combat and should be in combat and we should find opportunities, just like with colonel mcsally for them to serve in combat. i'm talking about infantry, armored, special forces, those

units where i object. >> chris: we're going to get to the issue of the draft in a minute, it is a legitimate issue a lot of people raised. colonel, does this kind of second-class status, i don't mean to call you that but the idea that women are not allowed into some combat roles, as general dempsey said, men are warriors and women are something else, do you think it has contributed to the environment in which sexual assault happens? >> absolutely. i mean, when you have an environment where women are treated as sort of second class warriors, they can do almost everything but not quite, the lead, not doing what really brings about promotions and leadership positions and what matters in the military the most you create this subconscious feeling that, you know, women are not quite equal with the men, and, so, that adds to our problem of sexual harassment. and sexual assault. and sexual assault is a complex issue and, the way to address it

obviously is finding those who are the criminals and rat them out of the military, and you don't keep the women out of the units, if those men are assaulting they'll assault civilians and other women they come in contact with. i agree it is absolutely necessary and the restrictions in the past added to the problem. >> chris: colonel mcsally, general boykin brought up the idea of the draft and a lot of people said, in fact the supreme court said the reason women should not be subjected to the draft is because they are not combat-ready. if you are going to lift the ban, and it has been lift, and, if we should have to go back to the draft in a military emergency should women take their place with men in the draft? >> well, i know really smart people who would argue maybe we shouldn't be having a selective service system in the first place but given the fact we do and we have tied citizenship with the obligation to be ready to defend the country, in whatever capacity needed in an

emergency, equal equals equal. so, i do believe that men and women at age 18 should be registering, because if the country needs you they'll need you for all the capabilities in the military. combat, noncombat and all the specialties and i have no problem with, if we are tying citizen obligation to the readiness to defend, that goes across the board. >> chris: general boykin? is that okay with you? if we have this -- and now it is a matter of fact, that the ban on women in combat, ground combat has been lifted, women in the draft? >> well, i think you have no option. i think you'll have to have women register with selective service and, obviously, be eligible for the draft. i don't think you can do it any other way. >> chris: and do you have a problem with that? >> well, i certainly don't want my daughters registering for the draft. and i'd like for them to have more of a choice, than a man would have, in a crisis. >> chris: i just want to end this with one final statistic and, colonel mcsally brought this up, talking about the fact

that the women are not in combat roles, has hurt their representation, their ability to rise through the ranks. 74,000 women in the army. 19 generals. that is .026%. i mean, doesn't the practical effect of not allowing women to serve on the ground in combat hurt their ability to rise through the ranks, general, to become a general like yourself? >> well, that's right. but, i think -- i think it does, chris. i think it clearly does, but, keep in mind the mission of the military is to fight and win wars. every decision made today should be made in the interest of military readiness. and, while i, again, i say women are in combat and women need to be given opportunities to serve in other combat roles, i am no longer against that. there was a time when i was. but, i also think we have to consider the second and third order effects and look at this holistically. >> chris: and, 30 seconds... colonel mcsally, what do you want to say? >> sure. this really isn't about rising to leadership.

this is about military effectiveness. 230,000 positions, that were previously closed, only a fraction of them are special forces and infantry. and the rest are a whole variety of other jobs that have been closed to women, if we want the most effective fighting force, we need to pick the most qualified capable man for the job, even if it is a woman. this is about military effectiveness and allowing to us recruit the most capable and qualmfied force. >> chris: colonel mcsally, general boykin, thank you so much for coming in today and, thank you, both of you, for your service to our nation. >> thank you. >> chris: up next two key senators on president obama's ambitious agenda for a second term. how much of it will congress pass? it's a game changer. ♪ it means cleaner, cheaper american-made energy. but we've got to be careful how we get it. design the wells to be safe. thousands of jobs. use the most advanced technology to protect our water. billions in the economy.

at chevron, if we can't do it right, we won't do it at all. we've got to think long term. we've got to think long term. ♪ aww man. [ male announcer ] returns are easy with free pickup from the u.s. postal service. we'll even drop off boxes if you need them. visit usps.com pay, print, and have it picked up for free. any time of year. ♪ nice sweater. thank you. ♪ thank you. you know it can be hard to lbreathe, and how that feels.e, copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open for 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily

inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. (blowing sound) ask your doctor about spiriva.

>> chris: just four days after president obama's triumphant second inaugural a federal court handed the white house a major set back. here to discuss it all, are two congressional leaders, from illinois, dick durbin, the number 2 democrat in the senate, and, bob corker, the top republican on the senate foreign relations committee. senators, welcome back to fox news sunday. the appeals court ruled friday president obama violated the constitution when he made three invalid appointments to the national labor relations board. senator corker you and 41 of your senate colleagues joined in support of the lawsuit. what do you think the ruling says about presidential overreach, both in these appointments, and, also, in all of the executive actions he has

been taking recently? >> well, it was a huge victory for anybody who believes in balance of power and the constitution and i could not have been more excited and came up off the floor when i saw that that had happened and hopefully the supreme court will uphold it. but, there is no question, that what happened with the nlrb and richard cordray, the financial protection head, that was abusive and, thankfully, the district court here in washington struck it down and, hopefully the supreme court will uphold it. >> chris: abused it in what way? >> my gosh, i mean, these people never had a hearing. so, i mean, they came forth, they never had a hearing and he confirmed them. . i mean, it was just -- or appointed them. it was one of the most abusive cases ever. obviously the ruling is very far-reaching and actually knocks down decades of action by presidents, as far as common practice goes. but i'm very thankful that it came forth and, hopefully, we can get back to more of a

balance of power. through the years, executive branch, obviously, has gained tremendous power. >> chris: do you think -- and i'll bring in senator durbin in a second. do you think it invalidates the more than 300 rulings made by the nlrb in the last year with the three invalid appointments and what about the action taken by the consumer financial protection bureau? is all of that out the window. >> could well do it. in each case someone might have to challenge the rulings to make them invalid but, certainly that is what we said at the time, chris. was these people were going to be working in banks, and the rulings they come forth with will be challenged, that tunnel out to be the case and, thankfully, for our country there will be a balance of power here. >> chris: senator durbin, i don't have to remind you, the democrats came up with the idea in 2007 of these pro forma sessions, gavel in every three days for 30 seconds so there wouldn't be a recess and therefore you couldn't have recess appointments and

president bush didn't challenge that and president obama did and that is why the lawsuit was filed. was that presidential overreach? >> let's step into this a little more. and ask why did we reach this point? why did the president believe the recess appointments were so critical? i think even bob would concede we reached the point in time because we couldn't go through the orderly process of reviewing nominees, and literally voting them up or down. there was a question about how often they could be brought to the floor, how long they would languish on the calendar. what hold would apply and whether or not there would be a vote and in his frustration the administration said, we were elected to govern and whether a national labor relations board or whatever, they wanted to put people in place to govern. i hope what happened thursday night, chris will change this. we had a bipartisan, strong bipartisan vote for some rules changes and included in those rules changes were changes in the way we treat nominees, not only for the courts but for these agencies. let's have a day in court for

each one of them, and let's have a hearing and let's have a vote. >> chris: i want to move on to another subject but briefly, i understand the president's frustration, that doesn't mean he can just rewrite the constitution. >> listen, i worked in the congressional branch, legislative branch of our government and i certainly didn't hold up our team, model, whatever it happens to be, whoever the president happens to be, but i want to put it into perspective. we have seen this president denied the opportunity to make appointments. over and over and over again. because one senator happens to hate a particular agency or a particular person. for goodness sakes, in fairness give them a hearing and give them the vote and let's get on with it. >> chris: do you want to respond to that? >> we'll i think we did something very good thursday night in that we didn't blow the senate up but i would say in the case of the nlrb nominee, there was never a hearing and in that case, it was incredibly abusive and again i'm glad the court struck it down and, hopefully we'll get back to regular order

and doing things the way we should be in the united states senate. >> chris: let's turn to the president's inaugural, his agenda for a second term. i think it is fair to say that it is a pretty liberal agenda. here's what he said during his address. >> president barack obama: the commitments we make to each other through medicare and medicaid and social security, these things do not sap our nation, they strengthen us. [applause]. >> president barack obama: they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great. >> chris: senator durbin, the president said that he rejected the -- that americans must choose between caring for our seniors, and investing in the new generation, but the question i have is, who on capitol hill, which republicans are saying that they don't intend to care for our seniors? >> do you recall the last campaign? when a man named mitt romney talked about the 47% of people who were takers?

those who were living off of the government? and those are the ones who will support the democrats? that approach was soundly rejected even by many republicans and what i heard the president say was programs like social security and medicare and medicaid critically important for our future, and, we need to have a bipartisan commitment to make them work. now, bob and i have been in a lot of meetings talking about deficit reduction. i think we need reform in these programs, and it means they'll live onto serve future generation, that's the message i took from the from the. >> chris: senator corker i'd like you to respond to that and also to comments house speaker boehner spoke about the president's attitude toward the republican party. let's watch. >> over the next 22 months, to be the focus of this administration. they attempt to annihilate the republican party. and, let me just say, i do believe that is their goal.

to just shove us into the dust bin of history. >> chris: senator corker, do republicans want to gut social security and medicare? does president obama want to destroy the republican party? >> obviously, republicans want to make sure these entitlement programs are here for future generations, right now, for every dollar we spend on the young people, we are spending $4 on seniors. right now, in medicare, the average person pays for 1/3 of the cost of the medicare program, dick durbin, for what it has been worth has been one of those people who is willing to sit down and solve the problem and i congratulate him on that. as far as the president's goal of annihilating the republican party, i will say that i was glad to see that the house was unified behind something recently as it relates to the fiscal issues and i think that is a backstop to that. the fact is, one thing the president didn't mention in his speech, was the major fiscal issue that our nation faces. it was everything but that.

and, to me, that was disheartening. it is the one issue that, before anything else, we need to put in the rearview mirror to make our country stronger. >> chris: senator durbin, you are a member of a bipartisan group of senators which plans to release a blueprint this week for immigration reform. a couple of questions: are you talking about a comprehensive package or a piecemeal approach? and will it include a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals who are already in the country? >> let me tell you, chris, the answer to both questions is yes. and i can tell you that sitting in these meetings, with 3 democrats and 3 republicans, working on this immigration issue has been as encouraging as the rules vote on thursday night. we are trying to work our way through some very difficult issues. but, we are committed to a comprehensive approach to finally, in this country, have an immigration law we can live with. we have virtually been going

maybe 25 years without a clear statement about immigration, and that is unacceptable in this nation of immigrant and we are putting into high priority the unification of families, to make sure families have a chance to come together and i'm glad the dream act is an integral part of -- something i've worked on more than 12 years. >> chris: senator corker from what you have heard and i know you are not a member of this group. could you accept a plan with a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals already here, if it is tied to benchmarks on border security and enforcement? >> well, i do like the things that marco rubio has been laying out. and i did talk to one of the members on the other -- my side of the aisle working with dick durbin and he was very optimistic last night at a dinner i attended. again, the details matter. i think right now, they are at the talking point stage and this needs to be reduced to legislation. the last time this blew up, was when it was reduced to legislation, so it is my hope we

will come up with a bipartisan solution. i do think that enforcement has to be a big part of it, but, again i like many of the principles that marco rubio has been laying out and i think he's a member of this group and i look forward to seeing what they produce. >> chris: finally, you are both members of the senate foreign relations committee which heard from secretary of state claim th -- secretary of state hillary clinton about the benghazi terror attack. here's what got the most attention. >> alisyn: we have four dead americans, because of a protest or guys out for a walk and they decide to kill some americans. what difference, at this point, does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can, to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. >> chris: senator durbin, doesn't it make a difference? isn't it important to find out whether or not the administration was telling the truth in the days after the attack? >> secretary of state hillary clinton has done an extraordinary job for this country and it will be

recognized by history and this was one of her finer moments. step back, chris and look: four brave americans died. she called for an independent investigation. they called for dramatic changes. she said i accept full responsibility and we're going to move forward to make those changes. so that all americans working around the world to represent us, are in a safer place. you know, we know what happened here. in the 6 or 8 weeks before the election this became a red flare of an issue. but now, now that that is passed, what we are going to do, through secretary clinton's leadership and i hope soon secretary kerry's leadership is to make sure it never happens again, that is the critical mission. >> chris: senator cocker, is it important for folks to know, does it make a difference, to use the phrase of secretary clinton, whether the administration was telling the truth to the american people in the days after benghazi? >> well, to her credit, the deception around the benghazi issue did not come from the state department. and no doubt, emanated from susan rice on this program and others that sunday morning, on

the 15th. and continued through this white house -- >> she didn't do it by herself... >> my point is, it was more of a white house political operative deception that was carried out. not from the state department. i do think that senator johnson and secretary clinton were talking past each other. i understand the point she was making. certainly, i understand the emotions of the american people who feel like they have been misled and, in fact, americans were misled in the beginning about what happened around the benghazi attack. >> chris: senators, we have to leave it there. thank you both so much for coming in, always good to talk with both of you. >> thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: the president issues an inaugural call to arms for his liberal agenda and suffers a big defeat in court. our sunday group breaks it down when we come right back. ♪

so...how'd it go? well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work.

♪ >> president barack obama: we cannot mistake absolutism for principle. substitute spectacle for politics or treat name calling as reasoned debate. [applause]. >> president barack obama: we must act. we must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. >> chris: president obama in his inaugural address, dismissing the opposition to him, here in washington and it is time now for our sunday group: brit hume, fox news senior political analyst, jeff zeleny

of "the new york times," kimberley strassel of the "wall street journal" and, fox news political analyst juan williams, and before we get to the president's inaugural for the second term i want to discuss the very important ruling by the circuit court of appeals here in washington, d.c. on friday. the president violated the constitution when he made three invalid, their words, appointments. to the nlrb, how big a deal? >> i think it is a very big deal and i think it will be hard to overcome, if the administration decides to appeal it and i say that for two reasons, one, the court basically threw out these nominations, appointments to the nlrb on two grounds, principally, one was that -- and this was a ground breaking ruling, that only between sessions of congress, when congress isn't in session at all, when they are out of session and waiting for the start of another one, a recess appointment could be made and that is counter to practice that

has gone on a long time and that may not be held up on appeal but the other ground which says the senate was not actually in recess, is i think the one that will be hard to -- >> having the pro forma sessions. >> every three days, and, there were appointment made when the senate was in recess, not between sessions. and, the shortest length of time in which any of those was made was like 13 days. this was in like a little two-day or three-day hiatus and, as far as the congress is concerned, both houses, the senate was not in session and the question comes, who gets to decide -- >> they were in session. >> i'm sorry. yes. the senate was in session and who gets to decide when one house of the legislature is in session? the president? or the legislative body? that is a separation of powers issue and one i think likely to be resolved against the president's view. >> chris: it is fair to say the president has been riding high since his re-election.

he had his way with republicans on the fiscal cliff and made 23 executive actions when it came to his gun control plan. now, he takes a beating in the court ruling which says he acted unconstitutionally, invalidates these appointments and could invalidate a year's worth of work by the nlrb and conceivably the consumer financial protection bureau, the head also was appoint at the same time and does it bring barack obama back to earth. >> i think it probably does and i think it was going to happen anyway. the first term agenda here is packed with a bunch of things and the constitution says that the president has four years but actually has a lot less time to get things done and i think this brings him down to earth a little bit. but what they are trying to talk about now in the west wing is how to prioritize things, they have all the issues going on and the court ruling surprised everyone. and it really throws a wrench in things in terms of what they want to get done but, i think he's going to come down to earth

anyway and this probably hastened it a bit. >> chris: kim, but the court ruling in the context of the president's inaugural address -- we heard a clip of it -- and what seems to be a very ambitious agenda, to the degree he talked about compromise and has talked about compromise, since his re-election, it is basically on his terms. >> well, and i don't think it brings him back down to earth. because this is the strategy. executive power. and, it has been ever since the republicans took back the house two years ago. they want to accomplish anything it has to be done via the offices of the white house and he remindennded us of that, andd he'll get it done and, that is -- >> even though -- >> think about it, this is how they've operated for two years. congress doesn't pass the dream act and the president issued an executive order putting it into place and, he doesn't agree with marijuana laws, drug laws and they don't prosecute in court.

and don't defend the defense of marriage act in court and they basically just use executive power, and use the nlrb to impose issues they cannot get congress to pass, versions of card check, for instance, use the epa to do a cap-and-trade bill they cannot get through congress, this is what he is going to do over the next two years with the further ambition, trying to make sure the republicans lose the house in which case he'll have control over congress again. >> chris: juan? >> i think that is right. and what you are seeing here is a response to gridlock. what we are talking about in the case the court ruled on, pepsi cola versus their union is that the republicans really do not like the decisions that would come from a democratic appointee, from the national labor relations board and so, they do not want that board to function. now, remember, these agencies have been created by congress, chris. they are a legit agency. but they are nonfunctional if you don't have people to run them, and so you had a minority in the senate and the house,

basically, conspire to stop the functioning of government agencies -- >> isn't that the constitution? balances? >> i think this is a power issue. you know? because what is going to have to happen is the supreme court is going to have to rule. is it the legitimate exercise of congressional power? we have seen as brit hume said a minute ago, that presidents, republicans and democrats, have exercised recess appointment powers for years, that is nothing new in this town. but, the difference here is... >> but they have to be in recess. >> the difference here is they intentionally created a sham, sham in which they say -- >> you know who created the sham? >> tell me. >> chris: the democrats. >> no, democrats -- >> democrats started it in 2007 with harry reid, blocking george w. bush. george w. bush never challenged this. >> correct and, in fact, george w. bush's lawyers wrote recently in the newspapers, that this is presidential power, the constitution gives the president the power to make recess

appointments. >> chris: juan, i want to -- >> that is not in dispute. what is in dispute here, is whether the senate was actually in recess and the question comes, who gets to decide whether the senate is in recess? the senate? or the president? >> a sham... >> and, in the broader context, there are things -- >> -- things done during that -- >> they weren't in town, they could not consider the nomination because they were not here. >> but it in broader context, the more interesting aspect of the ruling was them dialing it way, way back and saying, in fact if you look at the constitution, you can't even, if you are a president, hold out the recess appointments, and, then make them finally put them forward when senate is in recess. the recess actually has to happen while the senate is -- >> in the little bit of time left, what do you think of the republican argument, you heard it from the john boehner clip, we played for the senators, that the president doesn't just want to beat the republicans and have his way, but in some sense wants to annihilate the republicans,

divide the republicans, as he said, con seem them to the dust bin of history. do you see a more aggressive thing here than presidents usually have against the opposition. >> i'm not sure it is more aggressive than other presidents have had but it is more than this pat hresident had and, loo gun control, for example, he's trying to separate this republican unity that really has been strong during the first term and is trying to peel people back but i'm not sure it is more powerful for authoritative than other -- >> and he did it also with tax rates. we have to take a break, when we come back, secretary of state hillary clinton has a rare joint interview with the president and trades parting shots with congress. ♪

>> chris: still to come our power player of the week. he says he's not a biographer, he's a student of power. how you get it, and what you do with it. >> you are at war, because you are constantly saying, look what he's doing now. >> chris: stay tuned, we'll be right back. 

>> president barack obama: i want to have a chance to

publicly say thank you. because, i think hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we have had. >> president obama asked me to be secretary of state and i said yes, and why did he ask me and why did i say yes? because we both love our country. >> chris: president clinton and hillary clinton, in an unusual joint interview as she ends four years as secretary of state. we're back with the panel, apparently the president called "60 minutes" and said i'd like to do an interview with hillary clinton. now, what makes it so unusual, is that in his four years as president, the only time he sat down with another person, for an interview, mr. obama, was with mrs. obama, not with the vice president, not with any secretary, not with anybody else, and with mrs. obama, so, jeff, one, what do you make of it? will the chattering class here in washington think this is a kind of mini-endorsement of hillary for 2016 and how unhappy will joe biden be at 7 o'clock

when "60 minutes" goes on the air. >> he's definitely going to be following this and he was probably in the wings on friday when the interview was done, listening in. but, look, i'm not sure it is any more than just, this is good for the president, her approval rating is high and why not sit down in the forum, the "60 minutes" forum has been friendly to him in the first term and it is not an endorsement per se but it looks like that. we don't know if she'll run for president in 2016 and she's leaving her options open and within thing we saw on the hill, if she decides to run for president, her approval rating is going to go, back to how it was before. i mean, she's going to come down to earth here on things, but, if she runs for president, vice president joe biden will obviously not. there is a lot of chatter about him, is he keeping his options open? he had iowans and new hampshire and democrats over to his house, over the, you know, weekend. and i think that he is not going to challenge her. if she runs, he will not.

who knows, both may not run, but it is a bit of intrigue. >> chris: why do you think the president -- it was his decision -- why do you think he wanted to get engaged in this kind of an event. >> i mean, part of it might have been to build on hillary clinton's progress, this week on the hill and benghazi, to put it behind us. she was actually remarkable in it there, in that she went in, the republicans were fairly unprepared to move her off of her talking points. they had built this up for months and were finally going to get the answers on benghazi and nothing came out of that, really and they didn't manage to put benghazi into the broader context of the president's weak foreign policy which i'll be important to them when they deal, for instance with the hagel nomination. so it was score one for hillary and i think it was an attempt to build on that and move beyond it and talk about her legacy as a whole rather than that event. >> chris: i want to pick up on that, brit. because, during the hearing, what struck me was the

republicans were tough on hillary, on benghazi and the democrats weren't. but, both sides kept on saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. and here's some of the points that have been brought up, some of her accomplishments. she helped assemble the bombing campaign in libya, to topple muammar qaddafi. she helped assembly the coalition that imposed the toughest sanctions ever on iran. and, she established diplomatic ties with burma. question, brit: how do you rate hillary clinton's performance, record as our top diplomat. >> i think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. they do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on burma had been done by the previous administration and, the administration properly followed through on it. you look across the world, now, at the major issues. arabs and israelis, are they closer to peace? how about iran, north korea and the nuclear programs, have they been halted or seriously set back?

has the reset with russia, which he famously introduced with the photo op in moscow with the reset button, has that led to a new and more cooperative relationship? is there a clinton doctrine we can identify, she's articulated and formed as secretary of there major treaties she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion and the answer to all of those questions is she has not and those are the things that might mark her as a great secretary of state. she has certainly been industrious and visit 11 2 countries and her conduct has been highly dignified, she has done her homework, no gaffes or blunders and i think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state but the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak. >> chris: juan, was she a successful secretary of state? and how much does benghazi, and writ large, how much does that tarnish her record. >> i think she has been a very successful secretary of state. i think that the industry... it

has been impressive to people far and wide, she has traveled and made the effort big time. i would say contrary to what brit said, when you look back at this era in american history you have to say that our efforts, started by the bush administration to promote democracy agenda, the freedom agenda in the middle east, has been carried through so arab spring took place under hillary clinton's watch. and, you can say negatives in terms of the impact democracy has had, and this convened we have seen the flare-up in egypt but you have to say in terms of promoting american ideals of democracy she has been effective. when you talk about china and the reset button with russia, i think she managed those relationships, and certainly managed -- as chris wallace pointed out what happened in libya and certainly managed to build the alliances president obama wanted and she has not undermined this president and she has been an effective tool for the house, and he put together a team of rivals, and, to pick up on jeff's point, the democratic base in terms of

women and in terms of bill clinton, who became mr. obama's chief surrogate during the last campaign. >> i would simply say those are examples of competent conduct in office, but, look at -- i mean, you mentioned libya. how is that working out for us? how about all the weapons from libya, now in mali? how is that working for us -- excuse me -- and what about syria? how is our policy there succeeding in furthering the cause of democracy -- >> we have ended two wars under her watch, brit. iraq and afghanistan. and she has been critical in managing both of those situations, and -- >> think about it. look at the relationship, required with -- in afghanistan. with hamid karzai. who was the key figure, if there was one, in managing that relationship, john kerry. >> you are under estimating hillary clinton and president obama, karzai was here recently. >> i get that.

>> hillary clinton, how aggressive she was in outlining the hawkish foreign policy and said america has to get its act together and lead and confront the growing jihadists in north africa, exempt it is utterly opposite to the president's foreign policy agenda and either she doesn't really believe that, and she was saying it for her further political prospects or is an utterly... actually does not have a lot of influence with the administration. >> chris: less than a minute left. jeff, benghazi, does that stay as a tarnish? what difference does it make, which what's the big line that claim out? does it stay with her if she decides to run four years from now? >> it certainly stays with her but four years from now will be placed in a broader context and the sound bite will always be with her and i'm not sure that was a mistake, she wanted to be emotioned and she was effective in those hearings, but think of all the sound bites out there from hillary clinton, that is one of many. and, four years from now, you

know, who knows? >> chris: what is wrong with us? we're already talking about 2016! thanks, panel. check out panel plus where the group picks up on the web site, forksnewssunday.com, and, be sure to follow us on twitter, @foxnewssunday. up next our power player of the week. we're sitting on a bunch of shale gas.

there's natural gas under my town. it's a game changer. ♪ it means cleaner, cheaper american-made energy. but we've got to be careful how we get it. design the wells to be safe. thousands of jobs. use the most advanced technology to protect our water. billions in the economy. at chevron, if we can't do it right, we won't do it at all. we've got to think long term. we've got to think long term. ♪ >> chris: watching president

obama lay out his ambitious agenda in the week's inaugural got us thinking about another president who did much the same thing a half century ago. fortunately as we told you last september one of america's most celebrated historians has been explaining to us for decades how that president turned his plans into law. here's our power player of the week. ♪ >> you want to know how political power works in america in the last half of the 20th century sudden, inc. lyndon johnson's life and watching hip exercise power is a way to see what a president can really do. >> chris: robert caroll spent almost half his life telling the story of lbj. he says he's not a biographer, he's a student of power, how you get it and what you do with it an johnson he says was a genius at both. >> chris: how long did you think it would take... >> i, thought about ten years. >> chris: and now we are, what, 36 years into this? >> something like that.

>> chris: the breadth and depth of the work is stunning, since 1976 he has written four books, 3400 pages, winning almost every award there is starting with the pulitzer and he's not yet to johnson in vietnam. why has it taken so long? when he look at how johnson was first elected to the senate, in 1948, by 87 votes, he ended up writing a book about him. >> nobody ever looked at a stolen election from beginning to end, and said, this is what a stolen election is. >> chris: his latest, "passage of power" tells how johnson succeeded john kennedy, and saved his agenda. >> he takes legislation that kennedy introduced, that was stalled, really was not going to pass, civil rights, the tax cut bill, and, in an instant, johnson gets it moving towards passage. >> thank you very much. >> chris: last fall, he took part in a library of congress book festival, on the national

mall. and it was clear he made johnson come alive for many readers. >> chris: do you like him? >> i don't like him or dislike him, you are in awe of him because you are constantly saying, look what he's doing now! >> chris: he got excited talking about johnson's rise to power. but, as we turn to the final book, he's writing now, about johnson's presidency and vietnam, his demeanor suddenly changed. >> the story is going to turn very dark as soon as vietnam enters the picture. it is sort of a tragic story. a story of his great dreams, that are destroyed by a war. >> chris: you are 76 now. do you ever worry that you are not going to have time to finish the last book? >> well, sure! but, you know, it is not productive to think like that. >> chris: how long do you think it will take you to finish? >> i could say three or four years, but why would you believe me? >> chris: after all, carroll's

latest book took nine years but there is at least one part of the final chapter of the johnson story that is already written. >> chris: is it true that you already know the last sentence of the book? >> i always have to have a last sentence to write towards. i have to know what the conclusion is -- >> can you tell us? >> no! >> chris: a doozy of a last sentence? >> well, i hope so! >> chris: well, carroll feels the time pressure to finish up the johnson story, and also has plans to write another book, on a different subject, after that. as a big fan of his work i can't wait to read it. that's it for today, have a great week, and we'll see you next foz sunday. ♪ we'll see you next fox news sunday. we'll see you next fox news captioning by, closed captioning services, inc.